Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2018-335
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2018-335 PDF version References: 2016-225, 2017-429 and 2017-429-1 Ottawa, 30 August 2018 Public record: 1011-NOC2017-0429 The application numbers are set out in the decision. Reconsideration of licence renewal decisions for the television services of large English-language private ownership groups In May 2017, the Commission issued decisions to renew the licences for the television services of the large English-language private ownership groups. In an Order in Council issued pursuant to section 28 of the Broadcasting Act (the Act), the Governor in Council referred these decisions back to the Commission for reconsideration and hearing. Specifically, the Governor in Council asked the Commission to reconsider aspects of the decisions relating to expenditures on programs of national interest (PNI), music programming and short-form content. This decision sets out the Commission’s determinations further to that reconsideration process. Programs of national interest Bell and Corus services will be subject to PNI expenditure requirements of 7.5% and 8.5% of the previous broadcast year’s gross revenues, respectively. Rogers’ PNI expenditure requirements will be maintained at 5% of the previous broadcast year’s gross revenues. Music programming The groups will be required to direct 0.17% of their services’ previous broadcast year’s gross revenues to FACTOR. This amount may be counted towards meeting their Canadian programming expenditure requirement. This expenditure requirement will be temporary. Short-form content The Commission considers that additional specific funding from the groups for short- form content is not necessary. The contributions of the Bell Fund to short-form content help to ensure adequate support for the creation of such content despite the dissolution of the BravoFACT fund. The amended conditions of licence will take effect 1 September 2018, the beginning of the second year of the licence term for the groups’ affected services, and will apply until 31 August 2022, the end of the licence term. In reconsidering its decisions, the Commission took into consideration the Order in Council while remaining mindful of its obligations under the Act and of the record of this proceeding. Introduction 1. On 15 May 2017, the Commission issued a series of decisions to renew the licences for the television services of large English- and French-language private ownership groups. As part of this renewal, the Commission implemented policies stemming from Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2015-86 and Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2016-224. 2. By Order in Council P.C. 2017-1060, dated 14 August 2017 (the OIC), the Governor in Council referred back to the Commission for reconsideration and hearing certain aspects of the decisions set out in Broadcasting Decisions 2017-143 to 2017-147 (French-language ownership groups) and Broadcasting Decisions 2017-148 to 2017- 151 (English-language ownership groups), indicating that the decisions derogate from the attainment of the objectives of the Canadian broadcasting policy set out in section 3(1) of the Broadcasting Act (the Act), and in particular section 3(1)(s).1 3. The Governor in Council indicated that it would be material for the Commission to consider how it can be ensured that significant contributions are made to the creation and presentation of programs of national interest (PNI),2 music programming, short films and short-form documentaries. The OIC also directed the Commission to “take into consideration that creators of Canadian programming are key to the Canadian broadcasting system and that, while the industry is going through a transformation, Canadian programming and a dynamic creative sector are vital to the system’s competitiveness and contribute to Canada’s economy.” 4. The Commission asked Bell Media Inc. (Bell), Corus Entertainment Inc. (Corus) and Rogers Media Inc. (Rogers) (collectively, the groups) to update their licence renewal applications and submit any information relevant to the aspects of the decisions being reconsidered, including new financial information. The documents filed by the groups, as well as related correspondence, can be viewed using the following links: 1 Section 3(1)(s) of the Act states that “private networks and programming undertakings should, to an extent consistent with the financial and other resources available to them, (i) contribute significantly to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming, and (ii) be responsive to the evolving demands of the public.” 2 In the English-language market, PNI include Canadian dramas, long-form documentaries and award shows. Bell Media Inc. Application 2017-0788-7 Corus Entertainment Inc. Application 2017-0791-0 Rogers Media Inc. Application 2017-0793-6 5. The groups were also asked to comment on the possibility that amended conditions of licence, notably those relating to certain spending requirements, would be implemented for the entire duration of their services’ current licence terms, i.e., from 1 September 2017 to 31 August 2022. 6. The Commission held two phases of consultation and sought comments from interveners on the responses provided by the groups. 7. Consistent with the OIC and based on its examination of the updated applications in light of applicable regulations and policies, the interventions received and the licensees’ replies, the Commission considers it appropriate to address the following issues: the implementation date for the amended conditions of licence; expenditures on PNI; expenditures on music programming; and expenditures on short films and short-form documentaries. 8. The Commission considers that the matters and proposals that were raised by interveners and the groups and that are not directly related to the above-noted issues fall outside of the scope of this proceeding and the OIC. The Commission has therefore not taken them into account in this decision. Regulatory framework 9. In regulating and supervising all aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system, the Commission must seek to implement the broadcasting policy set out in section 3(1) of the Act, while having regard to the regulatory policy outlined in section 5(2) of the Act. 10. In the present case, the Governor in Council has determined that the Commission’s previous decisions derogated from the attainment of the objectives of the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in section 3(1) of the Act, and in particular section 3(1)(s). In asking the Commission to reconsider its decisions, the Governor in Council has therefore asked that the Commission do so with specific regard to section 3(1)(s) of the Act. However, the Commission must also continue to be mindful of the regulatory policy objectives relating to the regulation and supervision of the Canadian broadcasting system, as outlined in section 5(2) of the Act. The Commission has therefore re-examined its decisions and evaluated the evidence placed on the public file in the context of the current proceeding in light of the above-noted objectives of the Act. Implementation date for the amended conditions of licence 11. Section 28 of the Act states: 28 (1) Where the Commission makes a decision to issue, amend or renew a licence, the Governor in Council may, within ninety days after the date of the decision, on petition in writing of any person received within forty-five days after that date or on the Governor in Council’s own motion, by order, set aside the decision or refer the decision back to the Commission for reconsideration and hearing of the matter by the Commission, if the Governor in Council is satisfied that the decision derogates from the attainment of the objectives of the broadcasting policy set out in subsection 3(1). (2) An order made under subsection (1) that refers a decision back to the Commission for reconsideration and hearing shall set out the details of any matter that, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, may be material to the reconsideration and hearing. (3) Where a decision is referred back to the Commission under this section, the Commission shall reconsider the matter and, after a hearing as provided for by subsection (1), may (a) rescind the decision or the issue, amendment or renewal of the licence; (b) rescind the issue of the licence and issue a licence on the same or different conditions to another person; or (c) confirm, either with or without change, variation or alteration, the decision or the issue, amendment or renewal of the licence. 12. Based on section 28, the Governor in Council referred the licence renewal decisions back to the Commission for reconsideration, specifying the elements of the decisions to be reconsidered. Since the Governor in Council chose to refer these decisions back to the Commission rather than to set them aside, these decisions have remained in effect since 1 September 2017. The Commission must therefore consider the most appropriate date to implement the amended conditions of licence set out in this decision. Positions of parties 13. The groups submitted that the Commission does not have the authority under the Act to set aside the licensing decisions or impose new conditions of licence on a retroactive basis. They further argued that if the Governor in Council had intended the Commission to revisit the groups’ obligations for the first year of the licence term, it would have set aside the decisions. Finally, they raised concerns with respect to the cost and operational difficulties of implementing retroactive obligations given that a year of the licence